Posted on 01/17/2002 4:06:25 PM PST by t-shirt
Committee votes against gun-regulation bills
The Associated Press on Thursday, January 17
AP
SALT LAKE CITY -- A legislative committee has rejected two gun-regulation bills, one of which would close the gunshow loophole for background checks of firearms buyers.
The other measure would repeal the state law reserving all firearms regulation to the Legislature.
Both bills were sponsored by Rep. Scott Daniels, D-Salt Lake, who unsuccessfully pleaded with the Judiciary Interim Committee on Tuesday to keep the measures alive for debate when the legislative session officially begins Monday.
The panel sent both proposals back to the House Rules Committee with an unfavorable recommendation.
Maura Carabello, director of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, praised the gunshow bill as "very moderate and mainstream because it does affect criminals. ... As the next step, the next deterrent (to criminals) I would ask that you close this loophole."
Utah Shooting Sports Council Chairman Elwood Powell argued most criminals buy their guns on the black market, not at gun shows.
"Many believe this (plan) is a ruse, and is a precursor to a database that will lead to ultimate registration and confiscation of firearms," Powell said.
Committee members voted 11-4 to quash the bill.
They then quickly dispatched the second bill, aimed at deleting a 7-year-old law giving the Legislature exclusive control over firearms regulation in the state.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A10.
----------------------------------------
Don't miss this thread also of how ATF Gestapo Gun Confiscation Exercises can end: (Feds Destroy-Bulldoze Beck CrimeScene!- Like They did In OK & WACO!) Residents Pick Up the Pieces
Chlouber gun bill draws fire
Opponents say new law would force the police to issue firearm permits
By John Sanko, Rocky Mountain News Capitol Bureau
January 17, 2002
Gun-control groups are drawing a bead on Gov. Bill Owens' call for a statewide standard for issuing concealed weapons permits, saying it will put more firearms in the wrong hands.
Currently a police chief or sheriff can set his or her own criteria for issuing the permits. Some do so freely. In other jurisdictions, it's almost impossible to get a permit.
Owens in his State of the State message to lawmakers last week urged them to pass statewide standards. Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, said his SB 60 will do just that.
Chlouber's bill sets age, residency and training requirements for people getting permits and bars anyone with a criminal backgrounds from being issued one.
Another bill, HB 1147, by Rep. Mark Cloer, R-Colorado Springs, would keep secret the names of permit holders.
SAFE Colorado, Colorado Ceasefire, the Million Mom March, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Physicians for Social Responsibility came out against Chlouber's bill Wednesday.
The groups say the bill would force sheriffs and police to issue the permits.
"If this law is passed, a 7-11 clerk would have more discretion when selling cigarettes than a sheriff would have when issuing a concealed handgun permit," said John Head, co-president of SAFE Colorado.
Owens is standing by his argument that Colorado needs a statewide law and Chlouber insists his bill protects rather than endangers people.
"The fact is right now in Colorado, we have a haphazard patchwork of conflicting regulations that even allow authorities to issue permits for people living outside their own jurisdictions," said Owens' spokesman Dan Hopkins. "Bringing some sense and consistency to this maze of regulations is long overdue."
Head doesn't disagree that there are currently abuses, including last year's decision by the town of Stratton to issue permits to people throughout the state.
"But what they want to cure the existing problem with is a bill that would require police chiefs or sheriffs to issue permits -- that's what the gun lobby wants and they dress it with standards," Head said.
Chlouber said he'd love to sit down and talk with the critics, a meeting that Head said he'd certainly agree to before the bill is heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee. No hearing date has been set.
"Today's law allows guns in kindergarten," Chlouber said. "The proposal that I'm making for standards across the state prevents that."
Specifically the bill declares a permit holder is not authorized to carry a handgun into any place where it is barred by federal law or on school grounds, unless it is in a locked compartment within his or her vehicle. Private property owners also can bar them.
"Today's law says any sheriff or chief of police may issue a permit to carry weapons concealed. That's today's law, period. They can issue those permits to anybody anywhere anytime at no charge with no investigation and no restrictions," Chlouber said.
"A sheriff can walk outside his office, sit on the courthouse steps and start handing them out like popcorn."
January 17, 2002
And may we all recognize what all gun control is ultimately about--GUN CONFISCATION!
What a stupid statement, and a lie to boot!! What would she call a bill that didn't affect criminals? The bill is radical, because it also affects noncriminals. But it's also a lie because, it's already criminal for criminals to try to buy guns. It doesn't criminalize anything that is presently legal - the concept that there is a "loophole" in needing of being closed is a lie.
"Today's law allows guns in kindergarten," Chlouber said. "The proposal that I'm making for standards across the state prevents that."
Apparently Chlouber doesn't want a kindergarten teacher to brandish a gun to stop a child molester from kidnapping a five-year-old child.
Whenever gun grabbers talk about first steps or next step it really frosts my fanny because they will rarely define "final step" or what the bottom of the step looks like. My guess is that this organization has about 5 members, all of whom moved to the Avenues last year from the Bay area.
Hmmmmm. I thought the Second Amendment gave THE PEOPLE "exclusive control over firearms" not just in Utah but everywhere else in this country.
Pure BS from John Richardhead.
I had to laugh when I read that! Guess that guy doesn't know what "background check" means, eh?
But to be honest, I don't much care for Chlouber's bill either. It's a step forward in some areas, and a step back in others. On balance, I see it as a loss rather than a gain.
As he should. That's private enterprise. Get with the program, Colorado!
The one drawback with this than the other one is that in my state, we needed both the Sheriff(some for, some against) and the prosecutor(almost all against) to both be shall issue in order to get the permit. That made it nearly impossible in even mostly pro-gun counties like Livingston, Eaton, Jackson, and Barry. Only 5 or 6 counties were shall issue or almost shall issue, and ironically 4 of those counties went to Gore.
Now I don't know how many sheriffs out there are pro-2a. That's the big factor on this, but remember one thing. You are one election away from losing it all. Sheriff Jones retires or loses and Sheriff McKelvey takes his spot, and it's all over.
Under this bill, it's not arbitrary as well. Those in Denver and Boulder can CCW as well as those from the ranching areas.
Lastly, a shall issue bill can be improved. We are doing so in Michigan, and Kentucky got rid of most of their gun free zones.
The big key is how many sheriffs back CCW or are against it. If it's 5 or 6 counties for it, then this bill is needed in the worst way. If nearly all outside Denver and Boulder, then it's a tough call.
Good: "Shall issue" (the biggest plus); reciprocity with states that recognize CO's CCW permit; provides "resident" status for military personnel stationed in CO, as well as their immediate family for CCW purposes; continues to trump Denver's local ordinance on having a handgun in your car or truck - can carry in the glove box for any lawful purpose, including self defense; caps the fee for the permit at $100 per five-year period of issue; grants a lot of latitude to the sheriffs for the issuance of "emergency" permits and makes them available to people aged 18 and older as well as caps the fee for such permits at $25; caps permit renewal fees at $50.
Bad: Restricts carrying on school grounds (we can right now); requires an "approved" training course; denial for two alcohol-related incidents in the preceding 10-year period (seems like an awfully long time to me) unless he or she obtains a signed affadavit from a counselor stating that they are in treatment and have been alcohol-free for three years; gives a 90-day window for the sheriff to either issue a permit or send a letter explaining why one is being denied (not certain what the period of time is right now, but that's too long in my opinion); one of two required sets of fingerprints is sent to the FBI for their records check, but no requirement is made on the FBI to return or destroy those prints - the CBI is required under the statute to destroy the prints one day after determining eligibility.
Plenty of good and bad points to it. I'd like to see some amendments made on several of the bad points to either modify or get rid of them entirely. And to be honest, this bill wouldn't have that great an effect across the state. It would help those folks in Denver, Boulder, and a couple of other areas, but the rest of us wouldn't notice a real difference. I guess what I'd like to see is a straight-up "shall-issue" bill with reciprocity provision. From a couple of messages I've read on other boards (plus a couple of conversations that I've had), I'm fairly certain that one of those is going to get introduced in short order.
1. You got Bill Owens. He makes John Engler look absolutely great on guns. You need something that can get by him.
2. You have to convince the mushy middle. About 30-35% are pro-2a no matter what. 20-25% are anti no matter what. 40-50% of the votes are up for grabs. Some lean one way, some the other. That's an average in Michigan, and I'd say that Colorado(Post Columbine) and Michigan(Post Flint school shooting) are fairly close on feelings towards guns. Feelings are starting to recede somewhat since that happened and go back to old ways.
How can you get a bill that will convince the middle without giving it all up? We did it in Michigan. Can you do it in CO? That's the question.
I think that the strategy may be to liken it to a driver's license: If the state cannot show that you shouldn't have one, then you should. If you're a law-abiding citizen, then why should the state be in a position to tell you that you can't carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family?
I'm sure other ideas will come to mind, but that just jumps out at me.
And yes, Owens is a BIG part of the problem. The Chlouber bill is seen by many as a weak attempt to present him with an opportunity to do something that is "pro-gun", at least on the surface, in an election year.
Repeat after me: There is NO gun-show loophole.
Moron journalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.